Talk:Love (2015 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the French cinema task force.

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505040811/http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/article/61323.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/fr/article/61323.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Love (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510223618/http://www.letempsdetruittout.net/2015/05/gaspar-noe-s-love-first-official-cast-crew-list.html to http://www.letempsdetruittout.net/2015/05/gaspar-noe-s-love-first-official-cast-crew-list.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gross[edit]

Claimed box office gross figure is unclear. The source is Box Office Mojo but that website again fails to add the figures into a subtotal. So maybe it is a simple question of WP:CALC or maybe it is WP:SYNTH but it would be far clearer to instead use The Numbers which does provide a clear worldwide total of $814,867. -- 109.78.247.34 (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably more of a WP:CALC. Synthesis would be to combine the countries totals from both The Numbers and BOM and make an arbitrary total (which in theory would have been closer to the truth, but unfortunately is not allowed). See also The Raid 2 Talk Page. BOM is known for not providing foreign totals on so many movies (even providing wrong totals for some that contradict the sum of its national totals), even though it has gross details per country, that does not mean that the data is not there. I don't have a preference over BOM or The Numbers, I usually go with the one that has more data (which, in turn, is usually the one with the bigger gross). In this case it seems that BOM has Iceland, Finland and Romania which The Numbers hasn't, BOM also has a bigger Lithuania gross, while The Numbers has Korea and Australia which are missing in BOM, so in either case the data is not complete. Punkalyptic (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So we can at least agree Box Office Mojo is unreliable and fails to update totals. But you want to continue to use an unreliable source anyway. WP:CALC makes things significantly more complicated and difficult to check. It isn't just this film, as you say there are plenty of others where they make updates then fail to add up the international subtotals. Most editors fail to even admit they have done a CALC so in the rare cases anyone actually tries to check (or update) the figures it isn't clear that a figure haven't been vandalized (see fans inflating the figures of every Harry Potter film ever).

Clarity and verifiability are more important than supposed completeness. It is difficult to take an argument about completeness seriously when WP:MOSFILM have decided to round the figures in most articles anyway. Editors are leaving a giant mess that they have no intention of maintaining and checking.

It is a mess that can and should be avoided if at all possible, especially when a better clearer alternative exists in the form of The-Numbers and it should be used. -- 109.79.79.43 (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with what you're saying, although I prefer completeness when it is relatively straightforward (I mean, c'mon, I just c/p the table on a spreadsheet, it's not that difficult). In this case, I don't think anyone can argue that The Numbers is more reliable. As I already said, The Numbers is missing quite a few national grosses, if not more than BOM. The only difference between the two is that The Numbers automatically calculates the total, while BOM does not (it's really weird that they haven't gone the automated route, I would love if someone from BOM could explain this decision, and make our lives easier). But since the difference is not that great to argue about, I don't really mind if you prefer to keep The Numbers gross instead of BOM. I only chose BOM as its data for this particular case seems a bit more updated. I leave it up to you. Punkalyptic (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section[edit]

I have tagged the film's plot section, which appears to have been lifted from IMDb (see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3774694/). SunCrow (talk) 09:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film (and have no plans to), so I am not the best person to update the plot section. Could someone who has seen it please fix that section? SunCrow (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a note at WT:FILM to see if anyone can help with this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive reveals the plot on IMDb was added sometime between 2017 and 2019, while the page history shows our plot was developed gradually through a series of edits like this and this. So it's most likely WP:BACKWARDSCOPY. Nardog (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nardog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]